There have been multiple accounts created with the sole purpose of posting advertisement posts or replies containing unsolicited advertising.

Accounts which solely post advertisements, or persistently post them may be terminated.

asymmetric ,

Whatever, fuggem

A_Random_Idiot ,

Or don’t, preferably.

half_built_pyramids ,

Lol the cognitive dissonance levels here, insane.

I vote for criminalization of my friends and family. Why are they pissed at me?

GiddyGap ,

How anyone can be a member of the LGBTQ community and vote Republican is beyond me. Makes no sense.

Cataath ,

Imagine either hating paying taxes or hating brown people so much you’d vote for people who want to see you hanged.

ChickenLadyLovesLife ,

I work with two lesbians who are Trumpers. No surprises, they hate all non-White people with a passion. The only thing that surprised me is that they’re so racist they hate Chinese food.

Aceticon , (edited )

It’s perfectly possible having been born with characteristics that make one a “member” of a minority and still be a prejudiced asshole who discriminates against “others”. In fact the prejudiced take is to expect that’s any less likely for people from a specific minority to be prejudiced than other people.

That said, Trump and his ilk are targeting with their hate LGBT+, though mainly Transexuals and LGBT+ isn’t really A community but several.

Considering that at least some year ago there were plenty of stories of Bisexual men being discriminated against by other LGBT+ people, it’s not overly surprising the notion that some people who are Gay would thing that attacks on Transexuality are nothing to do with them personally and might even agree with it.

Unlike the reductio ad absurdum fantasy of liberal Identity Politics, people do come in all kinds no mater what group you tag them as being members of.

Regrettable_incident ,
@Regrettable_incident@lemmy.world avatar

Yeah, having experienced discrimination doesn’t make someone immune from discriminating themselves. There are dumbfuck bigoted arseholes all across the spectrum of humanity.

GroundedGator ,

Punching down. It’s often why bullies are bullies, they are someone’s victim and the lesson they learn is to find someone weaker to make a victim.

If you tell someone they are less than and they believe it, they will start looking for someone less than themselves to treat the same way.

It’s inferiority from the top down. Trump talks in terms of being the best, the greatest, etc to mask his true feelings. He feels he is less than. Maybe not consciously, but it’s absolutely something that weighs on him.

kent_eh ,

having experienced discrimination doesn’t make someone immune from discriminating themselves.

It just makes them someone who lacks introspection, empathy, and the ability to recognize face eating leopards.

AA5B ,

Not the same. Of course there are dumbfuck bigoted assholes who fit somewhere in the queer spectrum. It’s the dumbfuck bigoted assholes that appear to be marginalizing themselves, supporting bigotry against themselves and everyone like them, that seems like the bigger inconsistency here.

For example bisexual men being discriminated against by people who are NOT bisexual is at least logically consistent

Aceticon ,

Gay people discriminating against Transexuals is also logically consistent (not Moral, but certainly logical for somebody whose thinking is “As long a I am alright”).

For me a logical explanation for some people who are Gay aligning themselves with Trump and their crowd is them thinking that the prejudices of those people are against Transexuals, not Gays, and as they do not see themselves as being the same and they’re not actually pro-Equality out of Principle but simply out of “what’s in it for me”, they’re ok with discrimination against Transexuals.

AA5B ,

That’s some serious tightrope walking

pythonoob ,

I met one the other day. I was dumb founded until he told me he was a business owner in Colorado.

GiddyGap ,

Republican policies being better for business is among the biggest lies Republicans have successfully told the public.

prole ,

It’s better for billionaire corporations, not small business owners.

But if it weren’t or those damn blacks and taxes, their small town company would totally be an international corporation!

pythonoob ,

Idk much about that. He just suddenly clicked into a schema I had in my brain.

Asafum ,

Propaganda, full stop.

My cousin is one of these. The reporting on Palestine and Democrat support pushed him even more to the right because of Israel…

Thetimefarm ,

I think some people have a flawed belief that one side is always correct. The Dem party is clearly handling isreal badly so to them the Republicans must be the good side.

Klear ,

See also tankies - American government did tons of shady shit so obviously Stalin must have been a saint.

ChickenLadyLovesLife ,

My cousins are big Trumpers and their biggest reason for supporting him is his anti-immigrant stance. The kicker is that they’re half-Thai with a mother who immigrated from Thailand. They happen to look Mexican and were bullied for that growing up, but that experience didn’t exactly teach them empathy or anything.

tigeruppercut ,

I’ve got a book for you. It’s from 2002 but it still has some insight into this topic

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blinded_by_the_Right

Zier ,
@Zier@fedia.io avatar

I would never suck a MAGA dick. Enjoy being lonely while your cult worships the orange fascist!

MindTraveller ,

MAGA isn’t a cult. Cults are small. MAGA is big enough to be a religion, which is far more dangerous.

Sterile_Technique ,
@Sterile_Technique@lemmy.world avatar

https://media1.tenor.com/m/fHz7wfvakO8AAAAd/theyre-the-same-picture-the-office.gif

MindTraveller ,

Well, no. When you’re talking about the kind of massive institutional power of the kind that buys politicians and institutes theocratic dictatorships, that kind of power is exclusive to larger religions. You won’t see that kind of thing from a cult. Now a cult may well have beliefs just as vile as a religion, and it may ruin lives, but it doesn’t have the institutional power it takes to crush all opposition like you see from MAGA and Christianity.

davidagain ,

The church of scientology.

MindTraveller ,

Also not a cult.

davidagain ,

Look into it. But not too hard or too publicly.

MindTraveller ,

Were you paying attention earlier in the thread when I said cults are small, or are you expecting me to investigate Scientology and find that surprise, they’re actually very small and don’t have many members?

davidagain ,

I thought they were global and pretty large scale, but I haven’t got any numbers for you and I wouldn’t dream of comparing their size with major world religions.

My assertion, which I admit I didn’t express, is that the distinction between cult and religion is less about size and more about how much members lose personal autonomy and how secretive the organisation is about its beliefs and practices.

That’s the way I see it anyway, otherwise there’s not a lot of point having two different words for it. There are grey areas, sure, but that doesn’t mean that there is no distinction.

MindTraveller ,

You’re using a definition invented whole cloth by Christian pastors in the 70s with absolutely no basis in historical tradition, which was created solely with the intent of confusing people in order to push a political agenda.

davidagain ,

Oh. Wikipedia says that the anti-cult movement in the 70s was secular? Did you mean the anti-cult movement of the 40s? I didn’t know anything about that stuff till you brought it up, sorry.

I’m not particularly wedded to a particular definition of the word, but you seem to be using the modern and more critical meaning when you claim all religions are cults, whilst criticising me for not using the more neutral meaning of the word from antiquity, which I find confusing.

irreticent ,
@irreticent@lemmy.world avatar

which I find confusing

Some people like to argue just for the sake of arguing.

MindTraveller ,

I use the neutral meaning from antiquity, and I never said all religions are cults. You must have me confused with someone else

davidagain ,

Why not use the contemporary meaning so the rest of us don’t argue with you just because you’re using a definition that was only current about a century ago?

I never said all religions are cults

Actually, yes, you’re just the one that asserted that scientology isn’t one. There’s an inconsistency where you use the older, broader definition and then deny that it applies to scientology, and I’d like you to state for clarity what you mean by a cult and why you feel it doesn’t apply to the church of scientology.

MindTraveller ,

A cult is a small religion. Scientology is big. The new definition platforms ahistorical biases that attack smaller religions, particularly those with hundreds of years of history as cults, through linguistic association with abuse. That’s bad. It perpetuates satanic panic dogma.

davidagain , (edited )

Earlier you insinuated that scientology was small, now you’re saying it’s big. You don’t like the usual meaning of the word cult because you prefer to make cult mean “small religion” (which I think is a pretty pointless definition and confusing for most people). You claim that this is because it’s bad to have a word for a secretive group whose members lose personal autonomy or is otherwise particularly abusive. I don’t see it as in any way bad to be able to make that distinction, and I’m suspicious of the motives for removing it.

Citing “satanic panic dogma”, you mysteriously conclude the mere existence of a word with connotations of abuse is bad. It smells like a cover up, but I have no idea what you’re trying to blur the lines between because you haven’t made it clear which group that we saw as abusive you want us to reinterpret as merely small, or which group that we saw as merely small (and not cultish) you want us to use the word cult for.

You claim that something is ahistorical, but it’s never really clear what, since you aren’t using many of the key words to mean the same as the rest of us and haven’t made explicit the context that you’re referring to. I’d guess it’s something to do with the 1970s, but that’s really just a guess, I have no idea.

MindTraveller ,

Earlier you insinuated that scientology was small,

No I didn’t. I said scientology isn’t a cult. My reasoning was that it’s too big. You’re just bad at listening.

You claim that this is because it’s bad to have a word for a secretive group whose members lose personal autonomy or is otherwise particularly abusive

No I don’t. You really need to work on your listening skills. I’m saying that using an already existing word, which already describes a set of marginalised groups, as a slur is bad. For example, suppose white Christians went around saying that “person of colour” means criminal. That would be horrible, right? Do you understand why? It’s because using a term that already describes vulnerable people as a bad word is bad.

davidagain ,

No, I’m not bad at listening, you’re bad at being clear and honest about what you mean.

I read some of your comments elsewhere in this thread, and you feel that the word cult has been used negatively against Wiccans and Hellenists. You spend some time arguing that only big religions have the clout and money to be harmful, and you want the word cult to mean specifically just small rather than abusive.

The problem is that you lost the battle over the meaning of that word about 80 years ago from what I can tell from reading it up. You may as well try to stop people from using the word fantastic in a positive light and just use it to mean absurdly implausible. It’s too late. The meaning has changed. Rather than saying things like “Wicca is a cult, it’s just not harmful because it’s not a religion, stop using the word cult to mean harmful” instead, say things like “Hellenism isn’t a large, harmful religion, it’s a small harmless one”. You seem to identify with “cult” and you see that as positive and you dislike larger religions which you see as harmful. Instead of arguing over the meaning of the word cult, argue with people who criticise Hellenism.

You picked a big long argument over the meaning of the word cult because you can’t let go of a meaning from a century ago. Meanwhile your intent was lost because you didn’t make your perspective clear early on.

Here’s how society is: when it sees an abusive group using religious ideas led by someone with a big personality, it calls it a cult, meaning it loosely and negatively, and then you shoot into the argument saying “no, no, don’t call them a cult, they’re a religion”. To everyone else, you sound like you’re defending them, whereas what you mean is “don’t use the word cult for bad things”, but that’s not what you say! Not for a long time! It’s a different day and we’re tens of comments away from when you first tried to intervene! You obliquely say stull like “no, they’re not a cult they’re too big, and they’re too powerful” and then people say “but cults can be big and powerful” and you say “no, cults are only small. big powerful ones are called religions” and the whole argument isn’t explicitly about what you mean. Your point is lost.

It’s like saying “no I’m not a troll, I live in a 1980s semi” when you’d be far better off saying “no, I wasn’t being sarcastic at all - I meant it, we just disagree”. The word troll has changed its meaning, and trying to talk about height or whether someone lives in a house in an argument about whether someone is arguing in bad faith, without ever mentioning caves, which was your real point, because your great aunt lives in one of the ancient cliff homes of Matera in Italy, but inexplicably you never mention it.

Rebrand. Give up on the word cult. I know it has all kinds of positive connotations for you, but that ship has sailed for the rest of society. You’d get a lot more sympathy if you were just open and honest from the start, like “I’m a pagan and we always got called a cult pejoratively in the 1970s and I don’t like people using that word negatively. Could you use the word religion instead?” and then at least the people arguing with you know what they’re arguing about. You’ll still lose that argument, but at least you wouldn’t waste as much time being indirect. It’s simpler to give up on the word and rebrand. After all, “Wicca” and “White witch” are rebrands, avoiding the negative connotations of witchcraft (eg poisons and love potions aka date rate drugs). Rebranding works. The satanists regularly troll rightwingers/christofascists by asserting their religious freedom to oppose the abusive anti-minority practices of the alt-right in ways that are popular online. Not by saying “stop calling bad religions satanic”.

By the way, wikipedia thinks there are somewhere around 800,000 wiccans and less than 40,000 scientologists, so I think even that by your own definition, scientology is more of a cult than wicca. But in terms of using the legal system to silence opponents, it’s certainly much more powerful. Did you want me to stop calling things cults if they’re powerful now?

Zier ,
@Zier@fedia.io avatar

MEGA cult. Not to be confused with MAGA cult.

ImADifferentBird ,
@ImADifferentBird@lemmy.blahaj.zone avatar

You telling me that the “religion” that sued the Cult Awareness Network into oblivion so they wouldn’t be labeled a cult is not a cult?

MindTraveller ,

The Cult Awareness Network presented itself as a source of information about “cults”; by 1991 it was monitoring over 200 groups that it referred to as “mind-control cults”. It also promoted a form of coercive intervention by self-styled “deprogrammers” who would, for a significant fee, forcibly detain or even abduct the cult member and subject them to a barrage of attacks on their beliefs, supposedly in order to counter the effects of the brainwashing. The practice, which could involve criminal actions such as kidnapping and false imprisonment, generated controversy, and Ted Patrick and others faced both civil and criminal proceedings.

Gee, I fucking wonder why they lost that lawsuit. Scientologists are evil, but so was the Cult Awareness Network. You’re not going to convince anyone that those assholes were doing the right thing. You can’t expect a bunch of kidnappers to have a good opinion about what is and isn’t a cult. Scientology is a large scale religion, which makes it much worse than a cult. Now I don’t want to hear you defending the Scientologists by calling them a cult again.

neidu2 ,

Cult is just a word the big congregation uses about the small congregation

Agent641 ,

The new lexicon is “High demand group”

This encompasses cults, religions, MLMs, and all sorts of other groups that behave cult-like attributes

Lemminary ,

Cults are completely different from religion and size is not a defining factor. They’re more similar to a con and will sometimes use religion to exert control.

Knitting Cult Lady is great! She has a video outlining 7 defining characteristics of cults but I can’t find it.

MindTraveller ,

That’s a myth perpetuated by Christian mums during the satanic panic. Back in the 60s the hippie movement was in full swing and young people were abandoning Christianity to follow pagan religions like Wicca and Hellenism. Christian pastors felt threatened, so they came up with a conspiracy to take the word cult (which up until then had meant a small religion) and make it a bad word by association with abuse. That’s why all the historical examples of cults that predate the 60s have no association with abuse. You take an example like the Cult of Dionysus and there’s no pejorative meaning to the word.

Lemminary ,

I don’t think it’s a myth if it has become an area of study. Yes, words have different meanings like “theory” does in and out of academia, but the current understanding of the word is much more comprehensive than a small religion. And MAGA is most definitely a cult of personality that uses religion as a tool.

MindTraveller ,

You can do science on any made up word and reach genuine conclusions with flawed premises. Look at phrenology and scientific racism. If you ignore the question “is this thing real?” and skip straight to “what are the associations with this thing”, you’ll find something. It’ll be nonsense, but it’ll be there.

For example, suppose I look at the habits of clowns and roofers. I don’t question why clowns and roofers are associated, I just assume they are and check the data. The data I find will be the overlay of two different trends. I’ll reach all sorts of conclusions about clowns that are only true of roofers, and vice versa. The data will say clowns love a good beer after being outdoors all day, and roofers visit party stores a lot. That’s nonsense, but if I don’t question the association, the data will show it.

Associating small religions with abusive religions is the same mistake. The data will tell you all sorts of things about small and abusive religions, but it won’t tell you which trend belongs to which group, and people will make all sorts of wrong assumptions based on the wacky data.

Lemminary , (edited )

Yep, science has churned out some whacky stuff before. But what? So you’re saying that the study of non-religious or coincidentally religious cults as a means to exploit and control is pure made-up nonsense? That’s kind of wild to me considering how characteristic and consistent their modus operandi is. MAGA fits the bill so well, for example, that I have a hard time believing they don’t exist. And I’d like to hear some opinions from people in the know, like Daniella Mestyanek from the link above, who you’re essentially saying her entire field of study is based on a lie.

Zier ,
@Zier@fedia.io avatar

Same thing. Cults are never small.

theangryseal ,

You’re right. Even the moonies had big politicians kissing up to them once they got big enough and no one blinked, despite their leader openly claiming he was above Jesus Christ of Nazareth on the heavenly totem poll.

We’re dealing with a very strange religion.

Enkrod , (edited )

Anti-theist here, religion in all it’s forms is a blight on humanity, but let’s not muddle the waters with misused vocabulary.

The difference between a cult and a religion is not the number of believers, it’s how much they enforce groupthink, how hard it is to leave and if they are based around a charismatic leader who profits directly from the imposed sameness and thought control. Generally cults:

  • Rush you into joining and discourage or disallow questions.
  • Followers are encouraged to worship a specific group leader.
  • Leaders dictate in great detail all aspects of followers’ lives.
  • Followers are personally monitored to ensure they’re following guidelines.
  • Methods of control are used to keep members close.

That’s how, for example the catholic church isn’t a cult but scientology is. The sharp surveilance and strong measures in place to prevent deviancy make all the difference. It’s easy to leave catholicism, but leaving scientology can even be dangerous.

MindTraveller ,

That’s a measure of the abusiveness of a religion and has nothing to do with its size. I already explained in depth in another comment the political motivations for creating a second, fake definition of the word cult. If you consult Merriam Webster you’ll see the first definition of the word cult is “a religion regarded as unorthodox or spurious”, and none of the definitions mention abuse, because your claim is ahistorical myth.

PRUSSIA_x86 ,

https://lemmy.world/pictrs/image/5c527415-c907-450f-85f2-ab1262a53956.jpeg

timewarp ,
@timewarp@lemmy.world avatar

I can understand people disagreeing with them, but kicking sand and attacking people is literally the actions of fascist too. You don’t win people over by attacking them.

Today ,

That sounds like the right answer, but really, I’d be right there kicking sand.

Passerby6497 ,

You don’t prevent your bar from becoming a nazi bar by asking nicely though.

timewarp ,
@timewarp@lemmy.world avatar

So what’s the plan then? You going to punch the other side in the face to win their votes and show them how anti-fascist you are?

Passerby6497 ,

You make it clear they’re not welcome in the community, by force if necessary, and you let them back in once they’ve shown they can be trusted to be a member of the community again. IF they show they’ve changed.

I’ve been on a committee of people making this decision more than once. Rarely do people change enough to be welcomed back. Community self policing is the only way to really protect yourself when the government shows they wont.

timewarp ,
@timewarp@lemmy.world avatar

Where do they go? Do you propose that America has red states where only conservatives should live & blue states where liberals can live? Do you want to put over half of voters in concentration camps?

Passerby6497 ,

Oh no, the slipperiest of slopes attached to nothing but pure conjecture! I will never be hungry again with all of the words you just put into my mouth!

timewarp ,
@timewarp@lemmy.world avatar

deleted_by_moderator

    •
    davidagain ,

    Their point was that kicking someone out of a small club isn’t the same as kicking them out of the state.

    Your exaggeration of their point is what made it bad, not the point itself. That’s what the slippery slope fallacy is.

    They saw no point in debating your exaggerated question because it was so different to their position.

    They showed that they understood your debating technique better than you showed.

    timewarp ,
    @timewarp@lemmy.world avatar

    No, they showed that they wanted to engage in fascist behavior against a majority of voters right (according to polls).

    davidagain ,

    If you put a paedophile in charge of the country, none of our children are safe.

    timewarp , (edited )
    @timewarp@lemmy.world avatar

    I had planned on voting for Biden, but seeing how much Democrats are lying and gaslighting I’m actually thinking about staying home at this point. But you must know, even Biden has a history of questionable behavior with kids, sniffing them, touching them inappropriately, and it appears (according to Snopes) that Ashley Biden wrote about him showering with her and confirmed the diary to be hers in court.

    Furthermore, Trump has not been found guilty of being a pedophile. Democrats had 4 years to bring up charges on Trump being a pedo. They did not do it. Biden doesn’t call Trump a pedo. It is the Democrat voters grasping at straws who are in a cult making accusations rather than presenting policy because they lack intelligence. There is also this:

    theguardian.com/…/donald-trump-sexual-assault-law…

    Even more proof that the Katie Johnson story stinks and the media doesn’t report on it, cause they already investigated it and determined it lacked credibility:

    vox.com/…/trump-rape-13-year-old-lawsuit-katie-jo…

    There are others too:

    huffpost.com/…/donald-trump-rape-case_n_581a31a5e…

    Trump may be a pedophile, but to prove that you need a trial and evidence.

    davidagain ,

    Your double standards are striking (across multiple conversations here). In this case you’ve concluded that a girl who got death threats for bringing a case against Trump withdrew, not because of the death threats, but because she was lying, and you’ve equated smelling hair with rape.

    I once said that I thought that a politician who is famous for some pretty racist policies was probably trying to do the right thing in an admittedly stupidly foolish way on a separate issue, and people got very cross with me online for defending her, but it never once made me inclined to vote for her, that would be idiotic, so I simply don’t believe for a minute you were thinking of voting for Biden. If you want to claim you were prepared to vote for Biden, go on, what was it that made you think he would be a better president than trump?

    timewarp ,
    @timewarp@lemmy.world avatar

    The reasons I was inclined to vote for Biden is because I am agnostic. I support LGBTQ+ rights. I want to see the government providing more safety nets for people. Trump helped foster the environment for the Jan 6. insurrection. I’m not considering staying home to help Trump win. I’m considering staying home because Democrats actions lately have been gaslighting and lying. The state I’m in is not a swing state.

    davidagain ,

    You claim Democrats are the ones gaslighting and lying?!

    timewarp ,
    @timewarp@lemmy.world avatar

    That’s what I said, yes. The ones gaslighting about Biden right now are.

    davidagain ,

    What do you think gaslighting means, and how far do you feel you’ve been gaslit?

    nobleshift ,
    @nobleshift@lemmy.world avatar

    deleted_by_author

    •
    timewarp ,
    @timewarp@lemmy.world avatar

    So 30% support fascism according to you, but come elections over 40% are expected to vote for Trump. Who are the other 10%? Are the people voting for RFK Jr. fascist? Would that mean over 50% of Americans are fascist? Do you expect 39% to win in a war against over 50%?

    nobleshift ,
    @nobleshift@lemmy.world avatar

    deleted_by_author

    •
    timewarp ,
    @timewarp@lemmy.world avatar

    According to these facts you present, what you’re suggesting here is is that the following time periods in American history we were ruled by fascists and everyone that voted for those Presidents were fascists?

    2017-2021 2001-2009 1989-1993 1981-1989 1974-1977 1969-1974

    nobleshift ,
    @nobleshift@lemmy.world avatar

    deleted_by_author

    •
    timewarp ,
    @timewarp@lemmy.world avatar

    Your argument is that everyone who votes for the Republican (Trump presumably in this case) is fascist, is it not?

    Icalasari ,

    He's been popping up a lot. He argues in bad faith. Likely a paid troll

    TallonMetroid ,
    @TallonMetroid@lemmy.world avatar

    Maybe if fascists got their faces punched in more often they’d understand that getting punched in the face sucks and that maybe they shouldn’t advocate for punching people in the face in the first place.

    timewarp ,
    @timewarp@lemmy.world avatar

    Was Biden voting against same-sex marriages and gay people serving in the military a fascist once? Will Democrats call Biden a recovered fascist?

    wreckedcarzz ,
    @wreckedcarzz@lemmy.world avatar

    You once were a child, making poor decisions. Are you still that way? (waves at the rest of the crowd to hold their comments) No? Would you look at that then, it’s like people are capable of growing and learning.

    So, you fuck that bullshit narrative here and now, past and future actions don’t mean shit. People change for better or worse, and you don’t sit on your ass and point fingers because past or promises, but by current actions, things occurring here and now.

    And right the fuck now there’s only one realistic option for the LGBT+ community in the states, so I don’t particularly give a damn what the fuck happened decades ago. If you’re still stuck in the past, might want to reflect on that. The rest of us have bigger shit to worry about.

    timewarp ,
    @timewarp@lemmy.world avatar

    If you’re worried about LGBTQ+ community then you’d be advocating for Biden to step down.

    Gigagoblin ,
    @Gigagoblin@lemmy.blahaj.zone avatar

    hi, am part of said community. i’ll gladly punch a fascist in the face for being fascist. it’s like a cancer, essentially; you give it any room to breathe & it will take over the whole thing. just look at what happened to the skinhead movement. but, yeah, they want us dead or in camps anyway & civil discussion obviously doesn’t work when fascist philosophy only works if everyone involved is actively playing dumb & as such, not playing by the same rules as everyone else.

    timewarp ,
    @timewarp@lemmy.world avatar

    deleted_by_moderator

    •
    Gigagoblin , (edited )
    @Gigagoblin@lemmy.blahaj.zone avatar

    yeah & i’ll see you banned eventually, just like all the other prominent bad faith actors here. you’re not half as special or clever as you think you are.

    e : i love you had to slip in some BLM misinfo there. i’m not even from the US lol

    timewarp ,
    @timewarp@lemmy.world avatar

    Is that your reaction to deal with people not in the cult, to ban them… silence them even? Good thing you’re not from Palestine, or you’d be wondering why Biden is helping kill children.

    eldavi , (edited )

    it’s like people are capable of growing and learning.

    except biden didn’t learn or grow; he has a long history of going with the status quo and the status quo currently says that gays are okay and if gays were not okay tomorrow with the status quo; biden would tow that line as well.

    and i wish i had your privilege of ignoring the recent past; we’ve learned from it because it was so painful and we’re still trying to recover.

    Feathercrown ,

    You don’t, but at this point if they haven’t chosen the correct side it’s kind of on them.

    timewarp ,
    @timewarp@lemmy.world avatar

    So you attack them & tell them it is their fault that you’re attacking them? Kind of like how an abuser would blame the abused?

    Feathercrown ,

    Your analogy assumes innocence. In fact, it’s so strained that I have to believe you’re operating in bad faith here, or made a lapse in judgement.

    timewarp ,
    @timewarp@lemmy.world avatar

    It assumes that you’re the instigator of physical violence.

    nobleshift ,
    @nobleshift@lemmy.world avatar

    deleted_by_author

    •
    timewarp ,
    @timewarp@lemmy.world avatar

    So do you have a link or somewhere I can learn more about your domestic terrorist organization?

    nobleshift ,
    @nobleshift@lemmy.world avatar

    deleted_by_author

    •
    timewarp ,
    @timewarp@lemmy.world avatar

    So you keep this information stored on your local computer? Isn’t it dangerous?

    nobleshift ,
    @nobleshift@lemmy.world avatar

    deleted_by_author

    •
    timewarp ,
    @timewarp@lemmy.world avatar

    Who am I jerking off here?

    davidagain ,

    The rest of the conversation is missing, but you seem to be looking for volunteers to be jerked off by you?

    timewarp ,
    @timewarp@lemmy.world avatar

    No the person that removed their comments advocating for violent activities said I should find someone else to jerk off.

    davidagain ,

    You were jerking them off for advocating violence? That is one weird kink you’ve got there.

    timewarp ,
    @timewarp@lemmy.world avatar

    No I was advocating against it. I assume you know that. Do not lie about me and make things up.

    davidagain ,

    You would never stoop so low as to deliberately misinterpret someone online? Not even it it was funny?

    timewarp ,
    @timewarp@lemmy.world avatar

    Not that I’m aware of.

    davidagain ,

    You make it clear they’re not welcome in the community, by force if necessary, and you let them back in once they’ve shown they can be trusted to be a member of the community again. IF they show they’ve changed.

    I’ve been on a committee of people making this decision more than once. Rarely do people change enough to be welcomed back. Community self policing is the only way to really protect yourself when the government shows they wont.

    Where do they go? Do you propose that America has red states where only conservatives should live & blue states where liberals can live? Do you want to put over half of voters in concentration camps?

    This you?

    Regarding your lack of awareness:

    Oh no, the slipperiest of slopes attached to nothing but pure conjecture! I will never be hungry again with all of the words you just put into my mouth!

    You don’t think this was an attempt to raise awareness of your deliberate misinterpretation?

    Their point was that kicking someone out of a small club isn’t the same as kicking them out of the state.

    Your exaggeration of their point is what made it bad, not the point itself. That’s what the slippery slope fallacy is.

    You’re still unaware that you misinterpreted them online?!

    timewarp ,
    @timewarp@lemmy.world avatar

    I didn’t misinterpret them. Is it not true that over 40% of voters support Trump and that they are accusing Trump supporters of being fascist. Where do you expect those people to go if you think you’ll just kick them out of the communities where they live?

    davidagain ,

    You did misinterpret them. What kind of a community has a meeting to exclude folks for anti LGBT views? I tell you this, it wasn’t a housing project or a city, certainly not a state, it was surely a support group or similar. Your reading comprehension cannot be this bad.

    timewarp ,
    @timewarp@lemmy.world avatar

    You’re being disingenuous and inventing narratives. Why don’t you go ahead and post permalinks to where you claim I misinterpreted them. They weren’t taking about a small club. They were talking about kicking Trump supporters out of their communities.

    davidagain ,

    They said:

    You make it clear they’re not welcome in the community, by force if necessary, and you let them back in once they’ve shown they can be trusted to be a member of the community again. IF they show they’ve changed.

    I’ve been on a committee of people making this decision more than once. Rarely do people change enough to be welcomed back. Community self policing is the only way to really protect yourself when the government shows they wont.

    Again, what kind of a community has a meeting to exclude folks for anti LGBT views? I tell you this, it wasn’t a housing project or a city, certainly not a state, it was surely a support group or similar.

    You posted your “where do you think they’ll go if they’re kicked out of where they live” straight under that quote. Like, directly under it. The previous time you read that as being kicked out of their state, again, directly underneath.

    I don’t know, maybe when you hear people criticise conservatives it makes you so mad that you don’t read what they actually write. I find it hard to come up with other rational explanations for your statements.

    timewarp ,
    @timewarp@lemmy.world avatar

    Again, you’re being disingenuous. I asked for you to permalink to my comments. People can then look at the context and see for themselves that you’re a liar. The individual I responded to was clearly under the impression that all Trump supporters are fascist and should be removed from the communities from which they live and reside.

    davidagain , (edited )

    You’re being disingenuous. I’ve pasted exactly what they wrote, twice, and it’s only yesterday they said it. I’ve noticed that the moderators delayed some of your comments, but you and I know I’m not lying about your response. You’re denying they said what they said because I didn’t give you your precious hyperlink. Everyone can see you’re not arguing in good faith.

    memfree ,
    @memfree@lemmy.ml avatar

    Reminds me of a piece that is gone – but the below rephrase comes from here: mstdn.social/

    “The Paradox of Tolerance disappears if you look at tolerance, not as a moral standard, but as a social contract.

    If someone does not abide by the contract, then they are not covered by it.

    In other words: The intolerant are not following the rules of the social contract of mutual tolerance.

    Since they have broken the terms of the contract, they are no longer covered by the contract, and their intolerance should NOT be tolerated.”

    davidagain ,

    I like that. That’s a helpfully consistent way of framing it.

    krelvar ,

    https://lemmy.world/pictrs/image/ee0a8477-eff7-499b-8147-a1bfacd6b53b.jpeg

    iiGxC ,

    How is this an example of leopards eating faces?

    In this case the backlash is from the gay community to a (stupid) member of the gay community, so saying it’s a leopards-eating-faces party (lefp) member getting their face eaten would mean the gay community is the lefp right? I don’t think that’s what the lefp meme is about

    Feathercrown ,

    You’re right, but people aren’t listening to what your point is. Come on lemmy, you’re better than this

    SOMETHINGSWRONG ,

    No you and that commenter are literally wrong lmfao what do you even mean.

    The meme derives humor from the fact that someone who voted for leopards was surprised when leopards hurt them.

    The gays in the article supported bigots and was surprised when the bigots started to hurt them.

    Feathercrown ,

    The article’s ambiguous, but I read it as the LGBT community (rightfully) showering them with sand, not bigots doing it to be dicks.

    TallonMetroid ,
    @TallonMetroid@lemmy.world avatar

    That would fit with the rest of the article, which includes the fellow who got blacklisted from his local gay bar for being MAGA.

    frunch ,

    Hey hey now I’m just here to argue, not read articles

    androogee ,

    It’s the dumbest possible thing to argue about, and the Internet is 86% people finding dumb things to argue about

    theangryseal ,

    I don’t take kindly to your tone! There are a thousand other ways you could have said this. Let’s fight about it!

    Oh, yeah! Also, your mom is fat and you over feed your pets, I’m assuming.

    androogee ,

    Your lover made a minor faux pas? They’re a sociopath and they never loved you.

    I bite my thumb at thee

    catloaf ,

    Ha, that’s my favorite part of that play.

    “Is the law of our side if I say aye?”

    “No.”

    Just plain “no”. Gets me every time.

    iiGxC ,

    🤷😮‍💨

    catsarebadpeople ,

    This person supports policies that hurt themselves and their peers. Now their peers are angry with them for supporting things that hurt them. They are being hurt by the result of what they support.

    Feathercrown ,

    That’s not leopards eating faces though. That’s a guy voting for the leopards-eating-faces party and getting his shit rocked by his fellow citizens for endangering them.

    theangryseal ,

    A little bit of column A, a lotta bit of column B.

    iiGxC ,

    Yeah, but in this case it’s not the leopards eating their face (yet). They’ve voted for the leopards, people are angry at them for it, but so far the leopards have only eaten other peoples faces

    iiGxC ,

    Eh, then you could say voting progressive and getting attacked by your conservative community would count as leopards eating face, since you’re getting hurt by the result of what you support.

    The meme is about voting for the harm and being directly harmed by the policy voted for, like if someone voted to ban abortions and then couldn’t get one when they needed it. Voting to ban abortions and then getting backlash from your friends is not leopards eating face (yet) either

    Someonelol ,
    @Someonelol@lemmy.dbzer0.com avatar

    This guy is voting not only to have his own face eaten, but everyone else’s within his community. I wouldn’t want to acquaint myself with someone like that either.

    iiGxC ,

    I’m not saying the guy did a good thing. In this article he voted for the leopard party, but hasn’t had his face eaten yet. He voted for the leopard party and everyone was fucking pissed at him for it

    idk I thought the leopards eating faces party meme was mainly for examples of them both voting for leopards and getting their face eaten.

    Someonelol ,
    @Someonelol@lemmy.dbzer0.com avatar

    It’s a little more nuanced than that. The typical face eating leopards voter doesn’t have enough critical thinking to figure out they’ll get eaten eventually. Everyone else around him knows they’re gourmet leopard food and it’s only a matter of time before they’d get eaten. I wouldn’t wait to hold my judgment on the guy until after the inevitable happens because of his dumb-ass decision.

    iiGxC ,

    I see, so the meme is also used in cases where they voted for the leopards but haven’t had their face eaten yet?

    2484345508 ,

    🐆

    BonesOfTheMoon ,

    They’re in the sunken place.

    kerrigan778 ,

    They think it’s ruining their lives now? Wait till after the election

    return2ozma ,
    @return2ozma@lemmy.world avatar

    GOOD!

    Retrograde ,
    @Retrograde@lemmy.world avatar

    “Gay man who put face inside the leopard cage is sad that his face keeps getting eaten”

    AirDevil ,

    I had a friend who is gay and supported Mitt Romney back in the day. He campaigned against gays. Obama won and legalized same-sex marriage. She is now married to her wife. Reminds me of her

    eldavi , (edited )

    obama didn’t legalize same sex marriage; the supreme court did

    AirDevil ,

    Granted, you’re technically right. Support for it was certainly a large part of Obama’s campaign though. It’s unclear what the overall result would have been for Obergfell vs Hodges with an administration that would have been vitriolic to the ruling.

    eldavi ,

    I believe marriage is between a man and a woman. I am not in favor of gay marriage.

    – barrack obama 2008 during his campaign.

    AirDevil ,

    Voted against DOMA and eventually repealed it. There were some weird semantics about naming nomenclature of calling it a marriage in the early 2000’s. During the primaries he gave vague answers about some religions being opposed to it but did flip from earlier statements about same-sex marriages in his earlier career

    eldavi ,

    Voted against DOMA and eventually repealed it.

    doma was voted and enacted in 1996.

    obama entered federal politics in 2008.

    the supreme court invalidated doma in 2015.

    doma was repealed in 2022

    AirDevil ,

    You’re right and I’m misremembering how it happened. I really thought DOMA was later. I’m not sure the distinction between invalidating in verse repealing it. He may have seemed more pro-LGBTQ since others were more outwardly against it.

    eldavi , (edited )

    I’m not sure the distinction between invalidating in verse repealing it.

    in practical terms:

    • the repeal had no impact and was done by a congressional act that gave anti-lgbtq bigots legal protections for their bigotry; it was little more than political theater to make democrats seem more progressive on an issue that they chose wrongly (and cover biden’s ass) in 1996.
    • the invalidation meant that i could sponsor my life partner for citizenship, but he had already been deported years prior and he was (barely) young enough to know that he had enough time to rebuild his life with someone else and did so; while i was too old and autistic to make getting back on that horse a reality.

    He may have seemed more pro-LGBTQ since others were more outwardly against it.

    i suspect there’s a blind spot when it comes to democratic voters and lgbt issues; it’s assumed they’re more gay friendly unless you’re bitten by their anti-gay policies.

    cupcakezealot ,
    @cupcakezealot@lemmy.blahaj.zone avatar

    the same gay people who would tell the cops stonewall is right up the street

    11111one11111 , (edited )

    Did anyone read the article? Or am I not understanding the article correctly? Isnt the article saying their life is harder because they’re being rejected by the LGBTQ community for supporting Trump? Or lol am I misunderstanding this comment section that seems to be mostly implying they’re life is worse from the other MAGAs rejecting them?

    Edit: I’m laughing at how bad I am reading the room not at anything the article or comments are saying.

    TurtleJoe ,
    @TurtleJoe@lemmy.world avatar

    The article says that the specific people they’re featuring have been ostracized from the gay community. I wish the article was longer, because there’s a remarkable lack of self-awareness on display in the few quotes it includes.

    GasMeterCrasher ,

    It’s a terrible article and mostly click bait. My take away is they are being rejected by both sides. Big surprise.

    jpreston2005 ,

    I knew a gay republican couple. They both cheated on each other constantly. They didn’t do anything pro-gay or even remotely lgbt themed. They were actively ashamed of who they were. Both from affluent families, so that makes sense. One of them got me super drunk, and then took advantage of me while his partner was out of town. These are not good people.

    ByteOnBikes ,

    Ah, the Hateful Gay Type. Met a few of them in my life, all Trump supporters too. Never made any damn sense to me. Like they are driven by being a bitter piece of shit.

    catloaf , (edited )

    Gay people are just like all other people.

    Moneo ,

    hehe. You’re implying gay people aren’t regular people.

    lolcatnip , (edited )

    I think the implication is that “angry gay” is a distinct category with traits that aren’t purely the result of being angry or being gay.

    Also I think people get way too hung up on the idea that being “normal” is good, so not being normal must be bad. Since that probably can’t be fixed, I think it’s better to use the word “typical” instead of normal because it’s not so loaded.

    catloaf ,

    Good point. I’ve changed it.

    captainlezbian ,

    I get the feeling they’re just normal hateful people who happen to be gay and are angry about it and committed to making it everyone’s problem

    LaunchesKayaks ,
    @LaunchesKayaks@lemmy.world avatar

    I know two married men who are openly and claim to be happily gay, adopted 4 children, but are so pro-trump and all that crazy shit. Idk how they can be like that. As a gay woman, it’s so confusing.

    GreyEyedGhost ,

    As a straight guy, I’m also confused.

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • •
  • [email protected]
  • random
  • lifeLocal
  • goranko
  • All magazines
    •